Author
Topic: Is There Such Thing As a "Best" Normal Lens for Crop? (Read 16445 times)

I was pretty psyched about my Sigma 30 1.4 Art, but got some wild purple streaks in some pics so you fail. My telephoto lenses are the ultra flawless 100 2.0 and 200 2.8 II.Is there such thing as a best normal lens (prime or zoom) for crop? I usually don't need to go overly wide, but just a great general purpose (non-sports) lens that'll do it most the best.The Canon 24 2.8 IS is currently loosely at the top of the list, but maybe just deal with the size of the 17-55? 15-85? 35 2.0?Thanks.

paul13walnut5

I was pretty psyched about my Sigma 30 1.4 Art, but got some wild purple streaks in some pics so you fail. My telephoto lenses are the ultra flawless 100 2.0 and 200 2.8 II.Is there such thing as a best normal lens (prime or zoom) for crop? I usually don't need to go overly wide, but just a great general purpose (non-sports) lens that'll do it most the best.The Canon 35 2.0 IS is currently loosely at the top of the list, but maybe just deal with the size of the 17-55?Thanks.

But perspective wise, I felt it a perfect match for walkaround 'as I saw it' photography.

28mm on aps-c equates to the diagonal of the sensor, which like 43mm on 135 / leica / minature format seems to give the most natural perspective. Whether natural and perfect and the same thing for you is a matter for you.

I've grown to be quite fond of my EOS M + 22 combo. Partly the form factor and rich images from the M, maybe I've been swayed by the convenience rather than the focal length, but the 22mm f2.0 pancake really is super. I even like the fall off! Equiv to a 35mm in old money.

The thing with best, is that rules are always there to be broken.. and it is a lot of personal taste involved.

There is no best just what you prefer in terms of focal length. If you like the slightly tele effect that a 50mm gives on crop (88mm equiv) then you can't go wrong with one of the cheap 50s from Canon. I liked the nifty on the 7D it was a pretty good all round combo but sometimes I needed wider and I missed IS. Plus the 50 1.8 was soft until f/2.8. There was no logical reason to use it after I got the 17-55 so I sold it.

The 17-55 in my opinion is one of the greatest lenses you can get for a 7D or any other crop body. Wide open it was just as good as the nifty. Add a flash and you can shoot in almost any environment. Doesn't get more general purpose than that!

This is a little bit difficult. I used the 35mm f2 for quite a while as a walk arround lens. It is small, and the IQ is good; AF is noisy but fast enough. FoV is just a bit too narrow for my taste (56mm eqv.)The Sigma 30mm f1.4 got me quite excited, but the old version had horrible short focusing distance, which itself was a killer for me. The second generation improved in this aspect to an acceptable level, but I was hoping for Sigma 35mm f1.4 IQ, which it can't deliver, actually, the improvement over gen. one is not that big.

I then considerd a zoom option. There we have the 17/18-50/55 f2.8 options from Canon, Sigma and Tamron. The Canon being the best (and most expensive), then there is the nice 15-85mm, and Sigmas 17-70 is also in the mix. To make it short, the f2.8 were too expensive and lack some versatility (and when I really need fast glas, I take a prime), the 15-85 has a nice zoom range, but it is a bit slow, and IQ could also be a bit better (and it overlaps to much with the 10-22 at the wide end), so I went with the Sigma 17-70 and I'm very happy so far. IQ is great, the zoom range is nice. It works almost silent. And it is smaller and lighter than the other options.

But no, there is no "Best" normal lens for APS-C, there is only the one that suits your personal needs the best.

I was pretty psyched about my Sigma 30 1.4 Art, but got some wild purple streaks in some pics so you fail. My telephoto lenses are the ultra flawless 100 2.0 and 200 2.8 II.Is there such thing as a best normal lens (prime or zoom) for crop? I usually don't need to go overly wide, but just a great general purpose (non-sports) lens that'll do it most the best.The Canon 24 2.8 IS is currently loosely at the top of the list, but maybe just deal with the size of the 17-55? 15-85? 35 2.0?Thanks.

When you say "wild purple streaks", do you mean purple fringing in corners in areas of strong contrast that are out of focus etc.? If so, is it worse than other other lenses you have around that focal length or wider? Purple fringing is a common problem with fast and/or lenses, esp. when used at or near maximum aperture. If that's not what you mean, you probably have a defective lens.

I can't comment on the various "normal" zooms or the 24 2.8 IS, but you may want to consider the 28 2.8 IS too - on FF is works superbly, and I imagine it would on APS-C too.

Thank you for confirming my "oh **** it" moment. Added a lens hood and polarizing filter to the mix and will, of course, post pictures.

I think almost all lens/camera purchases are "oh ****it" moments for most people, coz there is always a "better" lens out there that we could/might have bought, so it is comforting when many people agree with our purchase decision ... but at the end of the day what we make of it that matters ... I've seen some very talented people who do awesome work with the el cheapo 18-55mm lens ... that said, I think you made a wise decision to go with the 17-55 f/2.8 IS, I had that lens for quite some time and loved it, I used to use it with my 7D & 60D cameras ... all of them (including 17-55) are sold to fund my 5D MK III last year. Congratulations on your 17-55 f/2.8 IS, may it serve you well.

Cory - I know you have already made your purchase which I would have to say was probably the safest choice. However, I would also give some thought to/or try out the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 (29-56mm equivalent). It covers what most people like to consider normal (between 35-50), it is faster than the 17-55, and has more current tech as far as lens coating and elements go. As a result, it supposedly has very minimal chromatic aberration for a lens in this FL range with an aperture that wide. This would only make sense though if you were open to getting another Sigma lens. To answer the other part of your question for a prime (my personal preference), would be the 35/2 IS. IQ is really good, it's faster than any zoom (minus the new Sigma), it fits your need for "normal", and it is the fastest lens Canon produces next to the 200mm that has IS. Again, this lens is fairly new and uses modern coatings which has helped a lot with CA compared to the 35L and the older 35/2. Also, it is an EF lens that you will be able to carry over with you should you decide to make the move to FF one day (it also happens to be on sale for $599 right now).

I use the 35/2 IS on the 5D3/EOS M and love it in both instances. I kept the 35L for the first month after picking up the 35/2 IS and eventually realized that the L was only going to collect more dust. Another affordable purchase that really exceeded my expectations.